This is exactly what is wrong with our country. Forcing some do-gooders idea on the country and making everyone pay for it. This has BSU written all over it.

I think we’re still at a a point where we like to maintain our own bikes, and this takes that out of our hands. Might be great for some, granted, as transportation is just really expensive, and the buses don’t run 24/7. But most bike fanatics like to take care of their own stuff.

Hey, this really isn’t federal money, it’s Obama money which is totally free. He gets it from his back pocket and sends it out to worthy places for stimulus. Think how much employment will be caused by this $650,000 expense – kabillions I tell you!

And when the bikes get stolen, as they did before, think how much good work the police can do tracking these down. Why maybe we can get another Obama money grant to hire some detectives!

Oh Bikeboy, who cares what your kids and grandkids will have to pay in the future. We are living in the now!

The alternative for that $650,000 of federal transportation funds (gasoline tax receipts) is about half a mile of highway construction.

We get down to some fundamental ideas about social policy here. Our local, state and national roadway systems resulted from a “do-gooder” notion that we can do a better job building and maintaining them as a community than privately. The toll-road to Idaho City, for instance, became a public highway.

Personally, I think giving up a half-mile of highway to encourage folks to give biking a try looks like a pretty good idea to lower the demand for that extra half-mile of highway.

So long as we’re subsidizing people to move to Kuna, for instance, by building more capacity for people to move around in a ton or two of steel, we can afford to invest in a much more efficient mode of getting people around.

So, which would you prefer: Subsidize commuters and development in the ‘burbs or encourage biking in Boise? Or, should we end public funding of the transportation system?

I’d rather see the money spent on bike paths and path maintenence.
And allow taking bikes on empty buses.

The motto of government: If it ain’t broke we are going to fix it until it is!

To learn about the success and failure of bike-sharing systems elsewhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_sharing_system

Well, I’m afraid the bikes would just all disappear again.

Still, as for using the tax money taken from us by the feds: Let’s see, would I rather have my money given to some U.S. city for a possibly hare-brained idea, or used to blow up some town I never heard off in some country I know little about to kill a bunch of people who might or might not be bad guys?
Hmmm ……

Yeah, Steve, I’m somewhat familiar with the resentment some have for public spending (taxes) for bikes. There are some who resent bicyclists being on the public roads.

Fuel taxes pay only a portion of the costs of our addictions to oil and autos. Property taxes pay for a sizable chunk of the local road system, which is where bikes could offer a viable alternative for lots more people.

Robert – I was under the impression that the $650,000 grant for this bike program came about during the last 3 years which I believe is the time that Obama has been in office and therefore would have been a grant given under his administration. But I could be wrong. Everything is all so Bush’s fault that I’m just not sure about the timelines anymore. Obama could have just been elected last week, but maybe it’s been over 3 years. It’s all so confusing.

Anyway, I’m sure when the bikes get stolen, that will be Bush’s fault too since apparently according to Obama and his acolytes, like you, that everything is Bush’s fault. But it’s only money, and $650,000 is such a teeny tiny amount that really it doesn’t even count as money.

I have a couple of thoughts:

1. Bikes have to fit right to pedal right and be comfortable for the rider. How will this happen?

2. Goatheads = flat tires. I don’t leave home w/o a spare tube and tools to fix a flat along with an air pump attached to the frame.

Didn’t former mayor Brent Coles try this out with the yellow bike program. I don’t recall the fate of this program.

I do agree with Mr. Richardson that $650k will buy about 1/2 mile of pavment. Iwould like to see lanes for bikes and would be willing to pay a registration fee to pay for them so I don’t have to battle cars while on my bike. There are rights of way along power lines that could be paved for bike use if everyone could agree on this move. Another area that is touchy with the irrigation people is the canal rights of way.

@ Gary: My facts are just fine. Look at the ADA crime map + stats which show Boise downtown and norend are the highest crime in the Boise area. If you go to a big city there is no doubt. Crime in the city is why the burbs were invented. All we need now is a large infusion of people who don’t have the same value system as we do and then the norend and bodo is truly doomed. The mayor is working on that for us too.

A flop is something that needs continuous outside funding. That is what you are advocating. I’m advocating government stop destroying my financial future with failed ideas. Have you seen the facts of our national debt? What makes you think we can afford to give free bikes to the local bike thieves? If this thing is a good idea it would be done already.

This bike thing sounds like a first lady campaign idea. Her other idea is collective urban farming and a lowering of the safe food standards for the stuff they sell in the street market (actually Mao’s idea but who noticed). 200 days!

Bike share programs are cool, but I don’t think Boise has the density.

Bike share members secure the rental with a credit card so there is much incentive to bring them back.

I ride to work every day, but I still have a registered car in my name as do most cyclist.

Knowing the light rail/trolley is DOA, city is desperate to find another way to be progressive. Why do we look to the government for all our services and soltuions. Another writer had it right, if it was a good idea, the bike shops and bike co-ops would be doing it.

Everybody happy idea (other than freeloaders): Sell memberships. If you get enough money, then do it. If not enough money, refund those who bought in.

And most importantly: Let the co-op our someone with some concept of how to run a business be the proprietor-manager.

Zippo,All:

FYI: Unfortunately, HB 495 that would have prevented the Idaho Land Board from buying and running businesses died in a Senate committee after passing 63-3 in the House. The bill was held because there was no motion on the measure. Maybe next year? For more info, go to:

http://www.idahoreporter.com/2012/bill-to-stop-land-board-business-purchase...

You could be correct… my last peek at the data was a few years ago. Norend and DT are neighbors and they are still high on the list for crime. What is the worst now, is it the bench? Another nearby area.

Did you look speciffically at bike theft?

Back to the main point of this story: Tell me how you’re going to justify 2/3 of a million $$ and make the program self-sustaining. It’s seems to be an idea based on someone’s guess of what they think might improve people’s health. Seems to me it is not the kind of process we should follow to protect the public trust, even if it is Obama’s funny-money.

Too many with too much spending power for too long = broke nation. We have arrived!

States street wider? It’s a great idea. Traffic count and accident rates indicate the need. Probably getting wider, in part, for bicycles? You do not understand what keeps the lights on in this country if you think infrastructure improvement is a waste. They need to do it with fewer suits and more shovels like they did in the 1960s, before we got a building full of wasteful over-educated people at the transportation department. It’s not enough however. Really need to be building a loop of freeway around the whole town instead of making these dangerous through-streets bigger.

Any bicycle theft specific crime stats yet. The latest ADA map seems to show the highest density crime in the area of our discussion. And how about that membership idea.

Oops! I erred in the comment above:
The $40 million estimate is for widening 4 miles of State St.–from 23rd St. to Glenwood–$10 million per mile. Previously, I was measuring the distance from 23rd to Veterans Parkway/36th St.

Not should become. Should BE self-sustaining. Stop spinning and side-stepping.

Assume nothing with this bunch of money wasting career people. They are about themselves first and public farther and farther down the list. They even pay people to blog about this kind of stuff so as to cloud the issue.

More than happy to cause you frustration bother. Peace, love, and get your hand out of my pocket!